Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    organised by convicted trespasser (to David Irving's apartment) Gerry Gable.

    You're really going to put a slight on his character because he's a convicted trespasser. Who cares?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Oh dear. I don't know if you think it's people being excessively PC when they confront your views, but it's not. They'd confront them because they are vile. Ignorant, ridiculous, illogical and poorly reasoned (if at all). You're a massive racist. This is morally wrong on a whole array of levels. I suspect you ought to leave the Conservative Party too, views like yours wouldn't be accepted within a million miles of a conservative that was capable of reasoned thought (well, maybe you're fine with the Conservatives then! har har, only joking).

    I realise I haven't actually dealt with your idiocy, only joked at its ugly spewing, but it is late and you are stupid.
    Isn't it amazing how people refuse to challenge perfectly reasonable, justified views and just decide to spout the vitriolic diorrhoa: "racist" (has anyone even managed to define it yet, lol), "idiot", "stupid", "ignorant", "ridiculous". Maybe you'd like to challenge how something is "morally wrong" when morals are always relative in accordance to the politics and society of the time anyway (the current state of which I simply disagree with). And I think you'll find that no-one with any sense of national pride would like to see the indigenous Britons become a minority in their own country; unless they're (a) not British (b) not indigenously British (c) self-hating apologetic fools. On the Tory Party, I think you'll find that there are plenty of traditionally right-wing Tories who are very distant from Cameron and his parliamentary Centrist rabble (Peter Hitchens comes to mind). John Bercow shared many of my views when he was young, and that was before immigration had got out of control. Your post just broke wind with the word FAIL. ROFL. :teeth:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ramzwj)
    You're really going to put a slight on his character because he's a convicted trespasser. Who cares?
    Well people seemed to waste their time discussing the BNP for their use of foreign models in their leaflets. Models FFS! :p: And, in fact, the point being that he trespassed on a right-wing historian's property in order to do something yet unknown (although I could imagine it wouldn't have involved hugs and kisses).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Well people seemed to waste their time discussing the BNP for their use of foreign models in their leaflets. Models FFS! :p: And, in fact, the point being that he trespassed on a right-wing historian's property in order to do something yet unknown (although I could imagine it wouldn't have involved hugs and kisses).
    Well, it was presumably to get evidence against him. I mean, I'm not condoning trespassing but he's not a murderer, just an activist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The dilution of British culture is one step on the way to the subversion of British culture which would, by definition, rid of those things that British culture encapsulates. It's been in flux undoubtedly, partly due to a combination of European influence over the past three millennia, but also due to a movement towards secularism. Yet, the centrality of British traditional culture has remained. Previous influences - many of which were Northern European, thus sharing a strong similitude anyway (the 'mongrel nation' theory has been disproved again and again by genetic research) - don't have any touch on the situation today. With the displacement by Third World religions and customs (many of which are violent and traditionally anti-British) those things that have shaped and characterised our society will eventually be gone; thus destroying Britain. It has been changing for progressive reasons, and certain influences have had effects on its manifestations, but there hasn't been any turn-around as great as there is now. As I mentioned above, that which comprises British culture are, for argument's sake, those things that have been consistently present across the past 3000 years, and those things that can be considered exclusively British. We're also a culturally Christian country, and with the impending Islamification of Northern Europe and introduction of universal Sharia law, the Christian institutionalism that has shaped and characterised our society will also be decimated to make way for something completely alien. Multiculturalism threatens to destroy Britain. Simple as that.

    I'm going to bullet point my argument to make my points clear , i'm pretty certain you'll remain in your opinion regardless but at least everyone else will see some sense in it.

    -British culture has changed and is changing constantly , the role of the monarchy , industrial revolution , social norms etc as well as many other factors have changed the face of society from that which we previously knew it to be.

    -Define Nationaility :The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization .

    As you can see being "british" by definition cannot be destroyed by a change in culture no matter how drastic it is . Britain is defined by the people who "belong" to Britain. If the population no longer clings to christianity then Britain no longer clings to christianity , this isn't a tragedy it is just how it is.

    In my opinion multi-culturalism cannot exists within a defined territory. British culture is defined by all the various cultures which exist within it's borders. "British food" for example does not consist of exclusively british foods , the curry which came from India is popular amongst many of the indeginous . The handshake for example originated from ancient Egypt.

    I don't understand how multi-culturalism can destroy britain when it is Britain.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The dilution of British culture is one step on the way to the subversion of British culture which would, by definition, rid of those things that British culture encapsulates. It's been in flux undoubtedly, partly due to a combination of European influence over the past three millennia, but also due to a movement towards secularism. Yet, the centrality of British traditional culture has remained. Previous influences - many of which were Northern European, thus sharing a strong similitude anyway (the 'mongrel nation' theory has been disproved again and again by genetic research) - don't have any touch on the situation today. With the displacement by Third World religions and customs (many of which are violent and traditionally anti-British) those things that have shaped and characterised our society will eventually be gone; thus destroying Britain. It has been changing for progressive reasons, and certain influences have had effects on its manifestations, but there hasn't been any turn-around as great as there is now. As I mentioned above, that which comprises British culture are, for argument's sake, those things that have been consistently present across the past 3000 years, and those things that can be considered exclusively British. We're also a culturally Christian country, and with the impending Islamification of Northern Europe and introduction of universal Sharia law, the Christian institutionalism that has shaped and characterised our society will also be decimated to make way for something completely alien. Multiculturalism threatens to destroy Britain. Simple as that.
    Change is the nature of life. It's been happening since the dawn of life itself, and you're throwing a hissy fit about something that won't affect you, and that nobody it does affect will care about because they'll know no different.

    If a culture changes to reflect the culture of the majority population, then what possible grounds do you have to complain ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arctic Explorer)
    that is not nessasaraly rasisist that is a protectionist policy... I know some ppl wont agree or they might i cba to read the rest of this thread.

    Unfortunatly the UK economy is driven by imigration and has been for hundreds of years.

    But we cannot sustain diversity. Diversity drives society appart we NEED intergration.

    Thats my oppinion so quote me if you want a responce
    :woo:

    I totally agree with you saying that we need integration. We need tolerance and acceptance of diversity, not measures in order to divide people even more than they already are. I believe that diverse cultural traditions can be maintained to a degree whilst integration is ensured, and really this is only achievable through acceptance and the unravelling of myths and generalisations about immigration.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, necessarily benevolent, there's not a lot of point trying to hold a reasoned argument with you. You spout empty rhetoric, use pseudo-intelligent language to hide the fact that what you're saying is largely baseless, repeat the same propaganda that we've heard time and time again and refuse to believe that you could ever be wrong.

    I kind of suspect that you just like being contrary.

    Anyway, just to appease you, The Daily Mail article only says white britons in 12 cities in the UK will be the minority. So you've exaggerated the "facts" given by a notoriously right-wing paper that has probably exaggerated them already. And then we're not even taking into account the ambiguity surrounding "indigenous" Britons, and the fact that you claim the issue here is social identity and so forth, and that there are plenty of non-white Britons with exactly the same social values and beliefs as white Britons, who are not counted as indigenous in these articles.

    What I'm trying to say is that A) The whole notion is ridiculous, and B) If you had half as much intelligence as you give the impression that you do through your writing style, you'd know this. Which leads me back to the beginning of this post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    When did 95% of the population become A grade morons?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasri-diaby)
    Yes, you don't seem to understand why you think BNP are good, your just voting for them.
    Better to misunderstand them and vote rather than understand them and still vote I guess.


    Personally I detect a :troll:

    But if not, then yes, racism is wrong.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3M!)
    -British culture has changed and is changing constantly , the role of the monarchy , industrial revolution , social norms etc as well as many other factors have changed the face of society from that which we previously knew it to be.
    As I stated; there is flux with regards to scientific progression, post-Enlightenment thought, secularism etc. but this did nothing to displace what we now perceive as integral to traditional British culture. They are English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh customs that (a) can be considered exclusively British, and (b) which have shown a consistent presence throughout British history (cultural Christianity being one example).

    (Original post by D3M!)
    -Define Nationaility :The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization .
    No. Nationality is more than a piece of paper saying you're British. There are just some things which transcend human agency and customs.

    (Original post by D3M!)
    As you can see being "british" by definition cannot be destroyed by a change in culture no matter how drastic it is . Britain is defined by the people who "belong" to Britain. If the population no longer clings to christianity then Britain no longer clings to christianity , this isn't a tragedy it is just how it is.
    British culture consists of being either English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh. As I said, it's not a mere case of present-mindedness, borders and passports. And I didn't say the Christian faith; I said cultural Christianity, which, in my view, is the idea that Christian institutionalism and history has acted as a deterministic factor in shaping our society. It doesn't have to have anything to do with scripture or teaching.

    (Original post by D3M!)
    the curry which came from India is popular amongst many of the indeginous
    Well I do think you'll find that much curry was actually invented by British colonialists in India; but, regardless, things are not necessarily legitimised by their popularity.

    (Original post by D3M!)
    I don't understand how multi-culturalism can destroy britain when it is Britain.
    It's not Britain. It's a 'Frankenstein's Monster' of sociology.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Isn't it amazing how people refuse to challenge perfectly reasonable, justified views and just decide to spout the vitriolic diorrhoa: "racist" (has anyone even managed to define it yet, lol), "idiot", "stupid", "ignorant", "ridiculous". Maybe you'd like to challenge how something is "morally wrong" when morals are always relative in accordance to the politics and society of the time anyway (the current state of which I simply disagree with). And I think you'll find that no-one with any sense of national pride would like to see the indigenous Britons become a minority in their own country; unless they're (a) not British (b) not indigenously British (c) self-hating apologetic fools. On the Tory Party, I think you'll find that there are plenty of traditionally right-wing Tories who are very distant from Cameron and his parliamentary Centrist rabble (Peter Hitchens comes to mind). John Bercow shared many of my views when he was young, and that was before immigration had got out of control. Your post just broke wind with the word FAIL. ROFL. :teeth:
    Here is my post, which I made about 20 minutes ago on this thread. I think I define racism quite nicely:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    You dislike people simply because of genetics...is that wrong? I think so.
    Arguably most personal characteristics are due to genetics, yet you'd find it perfectly acceptable to dislike someone on the basis of their being selfish, for example. So I don't think this is quite the right argument against racism.

    Racism is the belief in innate and significant differences between races (intelligence, empathy, work ethic, to use examples usually believed in), resulting in inequality between races. Racism such as this is quite regularly held, in a very casual, and largely harmless way (at least until effective rhetoric can whip it up).
    I'd argue racism is wrong because scientifically it is inaccurate and, more importantly, that one should judge each individual based on their own characteristics, rather than tarring races with a single brush.

    One should not confuse race with culture, as people often do. For example, one might say Asian's are harder working (sorry to use such an example). Well, I would argue it is racist to believe in this supposed and generalised view, if, crucially, the believer thinks the difference is race. If, however, they acknowledge the underlying cultural differences (which can be separated from race) as being the sole factor for inequality, then, to my mind, that is not racist. Therefore, while I personally believe in racial equality, I do not believe in cultural equality.


    Now, do your views coincide with what I am calling racist? Yes, they certainly seem to be, if we look in with any depth. You seem to be implying that 'Britain's people' are white people (the 'indigenous'), and go on to say that culturally only these indigenous are capable of achieving it (why is it that "Britain would cease to be Britain with a minority of indigenous Britons"?). For what reason is race important? It would only be if you believed that race determines ones characteristics, in which case, under the definition I outlined, you would be racist.

    "You wouldn't question an Australian aboriginal celebrating their heritage"

    This is not racism. As my first post shows, one must differentiate between race and culture, something you seem unable to do. Anyone is morally entitled to celebrate their culture, yet to celebrate race (as you seem to be implying), would be racist - it would be the celebration of the belief in racial difference.

    "Maybe you'd like to challenge how something is "morally wrong" when morals are always relative in accordance to the politics and society of the time anyway (the current state of which I simply disagree with)." What constitutes as being morally sound may change, but that doesn't mean morality alters. I don't think you're much of a philosopher, stay off that territory.

    I can assure you I will be completely indifferent when(/if) the 'indigenous' people of Britain become the minority - but then I hold no National Pride (why would one be proud of something one had no influence over? sorry, I shouldn't expose you to too many radical concepts). Yet I am an 'indigenous' Britain, and I certainly don't hate myself. I would be very willing to celebrate many elements of Britain's culture - the long standing rights of the individual, for example.

    I can assure you Peter Hitchens would not agree with you, and Bercow has had a radical alteration of belief (he was believed to be on the verge of defecting to the Labour benches for a while). But I don't doubt there are some nut heads on fringe of the party who may share your views, but I had discounted them when I only included those with reasoned thought.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :sad: Racism is disgusting, don't be racist, please :sad:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Isn't it amazing how people refuse to challenge perfectly reasonable, justified views and just decide to spout the vitriolic diorrhoa: "racist" (has anyone even managed to define it yet, lol), "idiot", "stupid", "ignorant", "ridiculous". Maybe you'd like to challenge how something is "morally wrong" when morals are always relative in accordance to the politics and society of the time anyway (the current state of which I simply disagree with). And I think you'll find that no-one with any sense of national pride would like to see the indigenous Britons become a minority in their own country; unless they're (a) not British (b) not indigenously British (c) self-hating apologetic fools. On the Tory Party, I think you'll find that there are plenty of traditionally right-wing Tories who are very distant from Cameron and his parliamentary Centrist rabble (Peter Hitchens comes to mind). John Bercow shared many of my views when he was young, and that was before immigration had got out of control. Your post just broke wind with the word FAIL. ROFL. :teeth:


    Sorry just wanted to mention Peter Hitchens. I actually prefer him to more left wing conservative types, particularly Cameron, because he speaks his mind. He doesn't mess around. Of course I think he has some odious views, but they're not all bad. He wants Rail re-nationalised for example. Strikes me as a kind of post war type of tory.

    Cameron is not centrist though. He's still right wing, even if you and the other tories are dissapointed by the fact that he is not more so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The strength of an anti-racism/anti-racist argument is positively correlated with (as the only factor) the number of synonyms for "bad" that are consecutively included.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arturo Bandini)
    To be fair, necessarily benevolent, there's not a lot of point trying to hold a reasoned argument with you. You spout empty rhetoric, use pseudo-intelligent language to hide the fact that what you're saying is largely baseless, repeat the same propaganda that we've heard time and time again and refuse to believe that you could ever be wrong.
    That's because I'm not.

    (Original post by Arturo Bandini)
    I kind of suspect that you just like being contrary.
    No. It's just that everyone who loves multiculturalism in this forum are ignorant middle-class liberal fools who wouldn't have experienced it at all.

    (Original post by Arturo Bandini)
    Anyway, just to appease you, The Daily Mail article only says white britons in 12 cities in the UK will be the minority.
    Within 30 years, whereas common consensus is 50 or 60 years before Britons become a minority. Squish. :awesome:

    These are basically a load of empty (haha) personal attacks with no counter argument anyway. So I don't exactly see how you can justify your claims. :giggle:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    These are basically a load of empty (haha) personal attacks with no counter argument anyway. So I don't exactly see how you can justify your claims. :giggle:
    I greatly look forward to reading your reply to my post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    wrong yes it is wrong shows how stupid you are and yo clearly must be. lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)



    No. It's just that everyone who loves multiculturalism in this forum are ignorant middle-class liberal fools who wouldn't have experienced it at all.


    I am pro-multi-culturalism and I am from a working class single parent household in an area with BNP councillors. No-one in my family has ever been to university before, our town centre is rife with crime day and night and muggings and stabbings aren't big news anymore because they're so frequent.

    That's the kind of generalisation that COMPLETELY undermines the arguments that you make. Any argument based on generalisation and unfounded prejudice (like the arguments of the BNP, funnily enough) are inherently flawed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Here is my post, which I made about 20 minutes ago on this thread. I think I define racism quite nicely:

    Spoiler:
    Show



    Arguably most personal characteristics are due to genetics, yet you'd find it perfectly acceptable to dislike someone on the basis of their being selfish, for example. So I don't think this is quite the right argument against racism.

    Racism is the belief in innate and significant differences between races (intelligence, empathy, work ethic, to use examples usually believed in), resulting in inequality between races. Racism such as this is quite regularly held, in a very casual, and largely harmless way (at least until effective rhetoric can whip it up).
    I'd argue racism is wrong because scientifically it is inaccurate and, more importantly, that one should judge each individual based on their own characteristics, rather than tarring races with a single brush.

    One should not confuse race with culture, as people often do. For example, one might say Asian's are harder working (sorry to use such an example). Well, I would argue it is racist to believe in this supposed and generalised view, if, crucially, the believer thinks the difference is race. If, however, they acknowledge the underlying cultural differences (which can be separated from race) as being the sole factor for inequality, then, to my mind, that is not racist. Therefore, while I personally believe in racial equality, I do not believe in cultural equality.


    Now, do your views coincide with what I am calling racist? Yes, they certainly seem to be, if we look in with any depth. You seem to be implying that 'Britain's people' are white people (the 'indigenous'), and go on to say that culturally only these indigenous are capable of achieving it (why is it that "Britain would cease to be Britain with a minority of indigenous Britons"?). For what reason is race important? It would only be if you believed that race determines ones characteristics, in which case, under the definition I outlined, you would be racist.

    "You wouldn't question an Australian aboriginal celebrating their heritage"

    This is not racism. As my first post shows, one must differentiate between race and culture, something you seem unable to do. Anyone is morally entitled to celebrate their culture, yet to celebrate race (as you seem to be implying), would be racist - it would be the celebration of the belief in racial difference.

    "Maybe you'd like to challenge how something is "morally wrong" when morals are always relative in accordance to the politics and society of the time anyway (the current state of which I simply disagree with)." What constitutes as being morally sound may change, but that doesn't mean morality alters. I don't think you're much of a philosopher, stay off that territory.

    I can assure you I will be completely indifferent when(/if) the 'indigenous' people of Britain become the minority - but then I hold no National Pride (why would one be proud of something one had no influence over? sorry, I shouldn't expose you to too many radical concepts). Yet I am an 'indigenous' Britain, and I certainly don't hate myself. I would be very willing to celebrate many elements of Britain's culture - the long standing rights of the individual, for example.

    I can assure you Peter Hitchens would not agree with you, and Bercow has had a radical alteration of belief (he was believed to be on the verge of defecting to the Labour benches for a while). But I don't doubt there are some nut heads on fringe of the party who may share your views, but I had discounted them when I only included those with reasoned thought.
    This is mainly a load of individualist libertarian nonsense which ignores any collective duty - been refuted billions of times before; won't need to do it again blah blah. :yawn: And that wouldn't be my definition of racism anyway. Racism is clear contempt and hatred for people of a different race (and I don't hate anyone of other races).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.